incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: License files - separate or one file [was Re: [VOTE] Approve the release of Apache Abdera 0.4.0-incubating (updated)]
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:20:37 GMT

On Apr 2, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote:

> Dan Diephouse wrote:
>> sebb wrote:
>>> On 31/03/2008, Dan Diephouse <dan.diephouse@mulesource.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>> -1: The LICENSE files need to either contain copies of the 

>>>> 3rd party
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>  > licenses, or they need to have a reference to the 3rd party
 
>>>> licences.
>>>> >>  > Equally, there is no need for the lib directory to contain
 
>>>> copies of
>>>> >>  > the AL for every ASF product.
>>>> >>  >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Why does the LICENSE file need to have a copy of all the other 

>>>> licenses?
>>>> >>  These are contained in the lib/ directory like many other ASF 

>>>> projects.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > See the last paragraph of:
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> "or at least put a pointer in the LICENSE file to the third-party
>>>> license" - which we in the NOTICE file.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> But they need to go in the LICENSE file, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/apply-license.html#new
>>>
>> Did you not read the next paragraph?
>>>> There is not a legal requirement here that it must be in the  
>>>> LICENSE
>>>> file itself - if so, please point me to the place in the license.  
>>>> This
>>>> is page is to provide "guidance" (see the first sentence), not be  
>>>> the
>>>> ultimate authority on what exactly is legally permissible for  
>>>> distributions.
>>>>
>>>>  If you look at many other ASF projects in the incubator and  
>>>> outside,
>>>> you'll see that this is not an enforced policy - this is simply  
>>>> telling
>>>> developers one way to get started here.
>>>>
>> Can other people please chime in here?
>>
>> I have never ever seen this enforced and I do not believe its a  
>> requirement. Just to summarize - do we need to 1) include all the  
>> licenses for all our dependencies in a single libary or can we 2)  
>> have our top LICENSE file which is ASL and then have individual  
>> LICENSE files for each library in the lib/ directory.
>>
>> I think not allowing the second would be a HUGE mistake. It makes  
>> it much clearer which license applies to which file.
>>
>> Dan
>>
> I misspoke. Here's what I meant to ask:
>
> Do we need to 1) include all the licenses for all our dependencies  
> in a single LICENSE file or can we 2) have our top LICENSE file  
> which is ASL and then have individual LICENSE files for each library  
> in the lib/ directory.

I'm not aware of a requirement for having only 1 LICENSE file. In  
fact, the document says you don't have to append 3rd-party licenses to  
the LICENSE file. It does say you should put a pointer to the license  
files. So, IMO, 2) is fine. Other Apache projects do this also.

I do think LICENSE information in jar files should be complete (i.e.  
jar files shouldn't reference information that would only be found in  
a full binary distribution). It looks like your jars are ok, in that  
respect.

On the other hand, I believe there must be only one NOTICE file. I see  
multiple NOTICE files in your jars. I haven't downloaded the full  
distribution given the number of changes which seem to be occurring...  
Hard to keep track.

--kevan
Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message